Law Society calls for decriminalisation of homosexuality
Straits Times, Thursday, April 05, 2007
The following text was taken from the Straits Times Online edition.
...
April 5, 2007
PROPOSED CHANGES TO PENAL CODE
Law Society: Give judges leeway to set aside death penalty
It also wants homosexual acts among consenting men decriminalised
By K.C. Vijayan
THE Law Society wants the mandatory death penalty for crimes such as
murder, drug trafficking and firearms-related offences scrapped.
Instead, it wants judges to be given the discretion to either
sentence offenders to death or to a jail term.
This is a key plank in the Law Society's response to proposed changes
to the Penal Code by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
Currently, the death penalty is mandatory in capital punishment
cases, and judges have no choice but to impose it if a person is
found guilty.
The Law Society also made several other proposals, including one to
decriminalise homosexual acts among consenting men, in a 55-page
report which was drafted by an ad-hoc committee of 16 lawyers and
academics, and endorsed by its council.
The society's views, submitted to the MHA on Friday, were drawn up
after Senior Minister of State (Home Affairs and Law) Ho Peng Kee
invited it to study the proposed changes in November last year.
The report was posted on its website on Tuesday.
In arguing for discretion to be given to judges in capital punishment
cases, the society pointed to a new law mooted by the ministry.
The proposed law deals with hostage-takers who hold the government or
others to ransom.
A person convicted of breaking this law will face either the death
penalty or a jail term extending to life and caning or a fine, the
ministry proposed.
Noting that judges in such cases were allowed discretion in
sentencing, the Law Society proposed that this be extended to all
capital offences.
It said that changing the mandatory death penalty for capital
offences will not reduce the deterrent element.
'This flexibility in sentencing humanises the law and reflects the
evolving standards of decency in Singapore society,' said the report.
Turning to sexual offences - in particular, Section 377 of the Penal
Code, which deals with sexual acts 'against the order of nature' -
the society said the MHA's proposal to retain homosexuality as an
offence in Section 377A 'cannot be justified'.
It described the retention as 'out of step with legal norms in the
modern law'.
The society stressed that it was not arguing that homosexuality is
morally acceptable, and said a 'significant minority' wanted the
provision to remain, but the majority view prevailed.
The MHA's approach is that homosexuality is not widely accepted here.
Having said that, the ministry has said it will not be 'proactive' in
enforcing this law against consensual acts that take place in private.
But the society sees this as an admission that the section is 'out-of-
step' and 'runs the risk of bringing the law into disrepute'. It
suggests a complete review, and a new chapter in the Penal Code on
sexual offences.
The society, expressing its gratitude that the MHA consulted both the
public and it, also urged that a commission be set up to review the
reforms.
Contacted yesterday, an MHA spokesman said all views received were
being studied.
The following text was taken from the Straits Times Online edition.
...
April 5, 2007
PROPOSED CHANGES TO PENAL CODE
Law Society: Give judges leeway to set aside death penalty
It also wants homosexual acts among consenting men decriminalised
By K.C. Vijayan
THE Law Society wants the mandatory death penalty for crimes such as
murder, drug trafficking and firearms-related offences scrapped.
Instead, it wants judges to be given the discretion to either
sentence offenders to death or to a jail term.
This is a key plank in the Law Society's response to proposed changes
to the Penal Code by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
Currently, the death penalty is mandatory in capital punishment
cases, and judges have no choice but to impose it if a person is
found guilty.
The Law Society also made several other proposals, including one to
decriminalise homosexual acts among consenting men, in a 55-page
report which was drafted by an ad-hoc committee of 16 lawyers and
academics, and endorsed by its council.
The society's views, submitted to the MHA on Friday, were drawn up
after Senior Minister of State (Home Affairs and Law) Ho Peng Kee
invited it to study the proposed changes in November last year.
The report was posted on its website on Tuesday.
In arguing for discretion to be given to judges in capital punishment
cases, the society pointed to a new law mooted by the ministry.
The proposed law deals with hostage-takers who hold the government or
others to ransom.
A person convicted of breaking this law will face either the death
penalty or a jail term extending to life and caning or a fine, the
ministry proposed.
Noting that judges in such cases were allowed discretion in
sentencing, the Law Society proposed that this be extended to all
capital offences.
It said that changing the mandatory death penalty for capital
offences will not reduce the deterrent element.
'This flexibility in sentencing humanises the law and reflects the
evolving standards of decency in Singapore society,' said the report.
Turning to sexual offences - in particular, Section 377 of the Penal
Code, which deals with sexual acts 'against the order of nature' -
the society said the MHA's proposal to retain homosexuality as an
offence in Section 377A 'cannot be justified'.
It described the retention as 'out of step with legal norms in the
modern law'.
The society stressed that it was not arguing that homosexuality is
morally acceptable, and said a 'significant minority' wanted the
provision to remain, but the majority view prevailed.
The MHA's approach is that homosexuality is not widely accepted here.
Having said that, the ministry has said it will not be 'proactive' in
enforcing this law against consensual acts that take place in private.
But the society sees this as an admission that the section is 'out-of-
step' and 'runs the risk of bringing the law into disrepute'. It
suggests a complete review, and a new chapter in the Penal Code on
sexual offences.
The society, expressing its gratitude that the MHA consulted both the
public and it, also urged that a commission be set up to review the
reforms.
Contacted yesterday, an MHA spokesman said all views received were
being studied.